4 ms·
I think the fact that the time-restricted eating group did slightly better than the consistent meal timing group is actually pretty strong evidence that intermi
by GhostVII 6y ago
I think the fact that the time-restricted eating group did slightly better than the consistent meal timing group is actually pretty strong evidence that intermittent fasting is effective. At least for me, it is much easier to only eat during a certain time period than to hold to a 3 meal a day schedule, so the fact that the groups performed similarly shows a lot of the value of intermittent fasting - same results with simpler rules.
Also I'm surprised that a 1% drop in body weight across ~100 participants gives statistically significant results - isn't that pretty well within daily fluctuation due to water intake? I would imagine most people who are trying to lose weight are aiming to lose more like 10% than 1%.
- URSpider94 6y agoThis is a logical fallacy. They didn’t test against “eat whenever you want” as a baseline, so you can’t draw any conclusions about effectiveness. Also, as you point out, there was no significant weight loss in either cohort, meaning NEITHER is effective for weight loss, though that may be against a baseline of weight gain (we don’t know without the zero-intervention control).
- kovach 6y agoFrom the study: (TRE = time-restricted eating) > There was a significant decrease in weight in the TRE (−0.94 kg; 95% CI, −1.68 to −0.20; P = .01)
- URSpider94 6y agoSorry, I was using "significant" in the non-scientific sense of the word. They proved with statistical significance that people lost weight, but the amount they lost (less than 1 kilo) is not medically or personally significant.